8 police denied service because of guns

[HomeInspect]

Police Officers Refused Service at Buffalo Wild Wings Because of Guns - Manassas, VA Patch

 

[editec]

Scott Lupton, the general manager of the Manassas Buffalo Wild Wings location, sent an email to LaClair, apologizing for any confusion caused by the incident, which he calls a “huge misunderstanding.”

End of story.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Excellent! The Anti-Gun Hysteria is really getting whipped up in America!

 

[HomeInspect]

Scott Lupton, the general manager of the Manassas Buffalo Wild Wings location, sent an email to LaClair, apologizing for any confusion caused by the incident, which he calls a “huge misunderstanding.”

End of story.

The story is the "huge misunderstanding". The hysteria over guns. In my state, guns sales have increased over 400% since last year. Want more guns in the world? Elect the mindless.

 

[Avatar4321]

Seems to be a nonstory. They apologized. It was a misunderstanding.

Would have been a foolish policy. Not wise to piss off the police if you may need their services at some future place in time.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Although I am pro-gun, it is the owner's choice, and his choice alone, to deny who he wishes on his property; even if his policy makes exceptions for certain types of people (on duty law enforcement).

If he wanted to get extreme, he could deny their presence based on the Third Amendment (if they refused to leave).

 

[whitehall]

You can make a case that the Police officers were unfairly treated but you have to consider that they were behaving badly by flashing their weapons while they were in plain clothes. The weather is cool and there is no excuse to run around with a weapon showing.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You can make a case that the Police officers were unfairly treated but you have to consider that they were behaving badly by flashing their weapons while they were in plain clothes. The weather is cool and there is no excuse to run around with a weapon showing.

How is your weapon being visible behaving badly? My car is a 3382 pound weapon, and its very visible. My hammer is visible outside when doing repairs, so are my bonfires.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Crime in the United States 2009

 

[Avatar4321]

Although I am pro-gun, it is the owner's choice, and his choice alone, to deny who he wishes on his property; even if his policy makes exceptions for certain types of people (on duty law enforcement).

If he wanted to get extreme, he could deny their presence based on the Third Amendment (if they refused to leave).

The third amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

 

[Avatar4321]

You can make a case that the Police officers were unfairly treated but you have to consider that they were behaving badly by flashing their weapons while they were in plain clothes. The weather is cool and there is no excuse to run around with a weapon showing.

How is wearing your gun on your holster flashing your weapon?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Although I am pro-gun, it is the owner's choice, and his choice alone, to deny who he wishes on his property; even if his policy makes exceptions for certain types of people (on duty law enforcement).

If he wanted to get extreme, he could deny their presence based on the Third Amendment (if they refused to leave).

The third amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

Agreed, logically it would merely be civil tresspass but if you really wanted to invoke the Constituion, you would have better luck with the 4th.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Although I am pro-gun, it is the owner's choice, and his choice alone, to deny who he wishes on his property; even if his policy makes exceptions for certain types of people (on duty law enforcement).

If he wanted to get extreme, he could deny their presence based on the Third Amendment (if they refused to leave).

The third amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

Agreed, logically it would merely be civil tresspass but if you really wanted to invoke the Constituion, you would have better luck with the 4th.

You have the right to deny "Soldiers" the right to remain on your property. A police officer is considered an "agent of the state," from Griswold vs Connecticut (right to privacy), and the 14th Amendment applies the 3rd Amendment to the State and local governments.

There is currently controversy brewing about Drones and 3rd Amendment as well.

 

[Avatar4321]

The third amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

Agreed, logically it would merely be civil tresspass but if you really wanted to invoke the Constituion, you would have better luck with the 4th.

You have the right to deny "Soldiers" the right to remain on your property. A police officer is considered an "agent of the state," from Griswold vs Connecticut (right to privacy), and the 14th Amendment applies the 3rd Amendment to the State and local governments.

There is currently controversy brewing about Drones and 3rd Amendment as well.

Police officers aren't soldiers. And they sure as heck aren't living at the restuarant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Police Officers Refused Service at Buffalo Wild Wings Because of Guns - Manassas, VA Patch

And?

 

[whitehall]

You can make a case that the Police officers were unfairly treated but you have to consider that they were behaving badly by flashing their weapons while they were in plain clothes. The weather is cool and there is no excuse to run around with a weapon showing.

How is your weapon being visible behaving badly? My car is a 3382 pound weapon, and its very visible. My hammer is visible outside when doing repairs, so are my bonfires.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Crime in the United States 2009

You know what I mean. I would expect that a big city department would consider disciplinary action against plain clothes officers who feel that they need to intimidate the public with a display of weapons in a restaurant. What did they looking for, a good table and a free meal? The crime rate in Manassas can't be too high when eight freaking plain clothes detectives can have a meal at the same time.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Police officers aren't soldiers. And they sure as heck aren't living at the restaurant.

The Tenantable Clause (quartered) is not a requirement to apply the Third Amendment.

Also, are you saying that if the Police decided to live in your home (whether ordered by government, or by their own free will), that the Third Amendment wouldn't apply?

The Third Amendment was once invoked as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. This happened in the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) which cited the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from "agents of the state".

The Third Amendment is a protection against a police state enforced by standing armies. Today, the government can curtail the Third Amendment by using drones, thus not requiring a standing army to oppress the population. Back in the days of old, standing armies were the only tool to oppress the people military (and this tool was expensive, required lodging and drained from the community resources).
------------

You're going to be seeing a lot of Third Amendment activity in the Courts within the coming decades.

 

[Avatar4321]

Police officers aren't soldiers. And they sure as heck aren't living at the restaurant.

The Tenantable Clause (quartered) is not a requirement to apply the Third Amendment.

Also, are you saying that if the Police decided to live in your home (whether ordered by government, or by their own free will), that the Third Amendment wouldn't apply?

The Third Amendment was once invoked as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. This happened in the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) which cited the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from "agents of the state".

The Third Amendment is a protection against a police state enforced by standing armies. Today, the government can curtail the Third Amendment by using drones, thus not requiring a standing army to oppress the population. Back in the days of old, standing armies were the only tool to oppress the people military (and this tool was expensive, required lodging and drained from the community resources).
------------

You're going to be seeing a lot of Third Amendment activity in the Courts within the coming decades.

So we should completely ignore what the 3rd amendment actually says and apply it to police officers instead of soldiers and apply it when no one is forcing you to house them?

The Fourth Amendment would be easily used to prevent police officers from living in your residence against your will. The 3rd would have absolutely no application.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Police officers aren't soldiers. And they sure as heck aren't living at the restaurant.

The Tenantable Clause (quartered) is not a requirement to apply the Third Amendment.

Also, are you saying that if the Police decided to live in your home (whether ordered by government, or by their own free will), that the Third Amendment wouldn't apply?

The Third Amendment was once invoked as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. This happened in the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) which cited the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from "agents of the state".

The Third Amendment is a protection against a police state enforced by standing armies. Today, the government can curtail the Third Amendment by using drones, thus not requiring a standing army to oppress the population. Back in the days of old, standing armies were the only tool to oppress the people military (and this tool was expensive, required lodging and drained from the community resources).
------------

You're going to be seeing a lot of Third Amendment activity in the Courts within the coming decades.

So we should completely ignore what the 3rd amendment actually says and apply it to police officers instead of soldiers and apply it when no one is forcing you to house them?

The Fourth Amendment would be easily used to prevent police officers from living in your residence against your will. The 3rd would have absolutely no application.

Good job ignoring the ruling of the Courts and the question asked.

"Also, are you saying that if the Police decided to live in your home (whether ordered by government, or by their own free will), that the Third Amendment wouldn't apply?"

The bold part assumes they have a warrant or order from the government.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/engblom.html

That ruling applies the Third Amendment to local and State governments via the 14th Amendment.

The Third Amendment was designed to assure a fundamental right to privacy. Since the privacy interest arises out of the use and enjoyment of property, an inquiry into the nature of the property-based privacy interest seeking protection becomes necessary. In closely analogous contexts rigid notions of ownership are not prerequisites to constitutional protections. When determining whether a legitimate expectation of privacy exists for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, for instance, the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a protected privacy interest in a place must be "based on a common-law interest in real or personal property." Rather, the Court stated that "one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy." Similarly, in applying the due process clause, the Court has extended its procedural protection "well beyond actual ownership of real estate, chattels, or money," and has interpreted "property" as "not limited (to) a few rigid, technical forms," but as "(denoting) a broad range of interests that are secured by "existing rules or understandings. A rigid reading of the word "Owner" in the Third Amendment would be wholly anomalous when viewed, for example, alongside established Fourth Amendment doctrine, since it would lead to an apartment tenant's being denied a privacy right against the forced quartering of troops, while that same tenant, or his guest, or even a hotel visitor, would have a legitimate privacy interest protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.

You can't just look at the Third Amendment and ignore all the historical implications and ratification debates and court rulings concerning it.

 

[Gracie]

Wherever I worked..whether it was my own shops or for someone else...cops, sheriffs, CHP...always got HUGE discounts on goods and/or free coffee, fries, burgers, etc. if they were in uniform. Creaky leather holsters, walkies on their shoulders...the whole shebang. And in my shops, I left orders for my employees if an officer came in...they get 50 per cent off (antique store), IF in uniform. Same with soldiers.
But I am retired now, so....doesn't matter what I did. But I wanted THEM to know I appreciate them.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Tenantable Clause (quartered) is not a requirement to apply the Third Amendment.

Also, are you saying that if the Police decided to live in your home (whether ordered by government, or by their own free will), that the Third Amendment wouldn't apply?



The Third Amendment is a protection against a police state enforced by standing armies. Today, the government can curtail the Third Amendment by using drones, thus not requiring a standing army to oppress the population. Back in the days of old, standing armies were the only tool to oppress the people military (and this tool was expensive, required lodging and drained from the community resources).
------------

You're going to be seeing a lot of Third Amendment activity in the Courts within the coming decades.

So we should completely ignore what the 3rd amendment actually says and apply it to police officers instead of soldiers and apply it when no one is forcing you to house them?

The Fourth Amendment would be easily used to prevent police officers from living in your residence against your will. The 3rd would have absolutely no application.

Good job ignoring the ruling of the Courts and the question asked.

"Also, are you saying that if the Police decided to live in your home (whether ordered by government, or by their own free will), that the Third Amendment wouldn't apply?"

The bold part assumes they have a warrant or order from the government.

Engblom v Carey

That ruling applies the Third Amendment to local and State governments via the 14th Amendment.

I was pretty clear that No the 3rd ammendment wouldn't apply. The 4th might. But not the 3rd. The 3rd is pretty specific.